Reichenbach's Soliloquy

 

                                          Hamlet -  

 Absolute time would exist in a causal structure for which the concept 

 "indeterminate as to time" order lends to a unique simultaneity,

 i.e., for which there is no finite interval of time between the 

 departure and return of a first-signal...

So the Logical Positivists are some of my favourite philosophers. Those involved in the movement were also very much involved in artistic movements of their day, though nowadays philosophers tend to see them as rather humourless and dry. And often they could be. But I'd just like to draw attention to this rather odd piece from a positivist which combines wry humour with a bit of literary interpretation. Behold, Hans Reichenbach's "Hamlet's Soliloquy", which is chapter 15 in The Rise of Scientific Philosophy. Enjoy!  

"To be or not to be - that is not a question but a tautology. I am not interested in empty statements. I want to know the truth of a synthetic statement: I want to know whether I shall be. Which means whether I shall have the courage to avenge my father.

Why do I need courage? It is true, my mother's husband, the king, is a powerful man and I shall risk my life. But if I can make it plain to everybody that he murdered my father, everybody will be on my side. If I can make it plain to everybody. It is so plain to me.

Why is it plain? I have good evidence. The ghost was very conclusive in his arguments. But he is only a ghost. Does he exist? I could not very well ask him. Maybe I dreamed him. But there is other evidence. That man had a motive to kill my father. What a chance to become king of Denmark! And the hurry with which my mother married him. My father had always been a healthy man. It's a good piece of indirect evidence.

But that's it: nothing but indirect evidence. Am I allowed to believe what is only probable? Here is the point where I lack the courage. It is not that I am afraid of the present king. I am afraid of doing something on the basis of a mere probability. The logician tells me that a probability has no meaning for an individual case: how then can I act in this case? That is what happens when you ask the logician. The native hue of resolution is sicklied over with the pale cast of thought. But what if I should start thinking after the deed and find out that I should not have done it?

Is the logician so bad? He tells me that if something is probable I am allowed to make a posit and act as though it were true. In doing so I shall be right in the greater number of cases. But shall I be right in this case? No answer. The logician says: act. You will be right in the greater number of cases.

I see a way out. I shall make the evidence more conclusive. It is a really a good idea: that show I shall put on. It will be a crucial experiment. It they murdered him they will be unable to hide their emotions. That is good psychology. If the test is positive I shall know the whole story for certain. See what I mean? there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, my dear logician.

I shall know for certain? I see your ironical smile. There is no certainty. The probability will be increased and my posit will have a higher rating. I can count on a greater percentage of correct results. That is all I can reach. I can't get away from making a posit. I want certainty, but all the logician has for me is the advice to make posits.

There I am, the eternal Hamlet. What does it help me to make posits? His advice confirms my doubt rather than giving me the courage I need for action. Logic is not made for me. One has to have more courage than Hamlet to be always guided by logic."

I think I actually prefer this version to Shakespeare's.

Reichenbach -  
 People assume that time is a
strict progression of cause to effect,
 but *actually* from a  non-linear,
 non-subjective viewpoint
 - it's more like a big ball of
wibbly wobbly .. time-y wimey... stuff.